FIFA - Decisión disputa Teah Doe 13092023

REF. FPSD-11080

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 13 September 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Sackie Teah Doe BY: André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), Single Judge

CLAIMANT:

Sackie Teah Doe, Liberia & Indonesia Represented by Afonso Leon Lleo

RESPONDENT:

Gresik United FC, Indonesia pg. 2

REF. FPSD-11080

I. Facts of the case

1. The parties to the dispute are the Liberian & Indonesian player, Sackie Teah Doe

(hereinafter: the Claimant or the player), and the Indonesian club, Gresik United FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club).

2. On 1 June 2022, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract

(hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the same date until 30 March 2023.

3. The parties are identified as follows in the contract (quoted verbatim): “PT GRESIK USAHA SEJAHTERA a Limited Liability Company, located at Jl. Veteran No. 160, Gending Wetan Village, Kebomas Sub-district, Gresik Regency, East Java Province, in this case

represented by: […] Hereinafter Referred to as the ‘CLUB’

2. Name: Doe Sackie Teah

Address: Yos Sudarso No. 22 Tamanan,

TuIungagung Place/Date of Birth: Monrivia, 12 August 1988 Nomer ID (NIK) 3504011208880003

Citizenship: Indonesia Hereinafter referred to as ‘PLAYER’”.

4. Under the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the total remuneration of IDR 375,000 net.

5. According to the information provided to FIFA by the Indonesian Football Association (PSSI), the player was registered with the club as Indonesian.

6. By correspondence dated 22 June 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of his “financial entitlements since November 2022”, granting the club with 10 days to cure its breach.

7. On 26 July 2023, lodged a claim against the club before FIFA.

8. As to the jurisdiction, the player submitted he is a professional football player of Liberian nationality, and the Respondent is a professional Indonesian football club affiliated to the PSSI. Therefore, the dispute is of an international dimension. The player argued that according to Article 22, par. 1 lit. b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension, and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) is the competent body to adjudicate on such cases, as per Article 24.1 of the RSTP. pg. 3

REF. FPSD-11080

9. As to the substance, the Claimant requests that the DRC accepts his claim, orders the Respondent to pay him IDR 120,000,000 net as outstanding remuneration (i.e., salaries from December 2022 to March 2023) plus interest at a rate of 5% per annum, and grants any other relief deemed necessary.

10. The Respondent did not file its position in spite of having been invited to do so by the FIFA general secretariat.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

11. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 July 2023 and submitted for decision on 13 September 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal

(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

12. By this token, the Single Judge deemed it appropriate to recall the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it. Likewise, he stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider and rely on any evidence not presented by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

13. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the RSTP (May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with matters concerning an employment-related dispute between a club and a player with an international dimension. The wording of the article in question clearly implies that the first condition that needs to be compulsorily fulfilled in order for FIFA to be competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player is that said dispute has an international dimension. This means that FIFA is only competent to hear an employmentrelated dispute of such kind when the parties have different nationalities.

14. The Single Judge however noted that the international dimension of the present dispute, which would determine the competence to deal with its substance, must be examined beforehand. In particular, the Single Judge noted that while the Claimant deems that FIFA is competent to decide on the present matter because he is Liberian, he also bears the Indonesian nationality. pg. 4

REF. FPSD-11080

15. Along these lines, the Single Judge recalled that the jurisprudence of the DRC shows that in cases where a player has dual citizenship, the registration is a determining factor when

assessing if the international dimension of the dispute is given, considering that clubs may enjoy benefits in registering a player with a certain nationality, inter alia, due to the specific limitations in the number of foreign players.

16. Entering the analysis of the present dispute, the Single Judge first noted from the documentation on file that irrespective of the fact that the player was undisputedly born in Monrovia (Liberia), the contract textually states that the player is Indonesian, and the PSSI has confirmed that the player was registered as such.

17. What is more, the Single Judge underlined that the information provided by the PSSI is furthermore backed up by data inserted in TMS in connection with the registration of the player by the club. Indeed, the player’s ID card listed in the claim and in the contract is the same one available in TMS and provided to FIFA by the PSSI.

18. The Single Judge also recalled that despite alleging that FIFA is competent to entertain the claim on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the RSTP, the Claimant advanced no evidence other than the contract in support of his argumentation, as well as no explanation as to why the international dimension would exist if the same contract listed the player as having Indonesian citizenship.

19. In view of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the player was registered under the same nationality as the club and therefore the present claim lacks international dimension. As such, the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant.

b. Costs

20. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

21. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be

awarded in these proceedings.

22. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties. pg. 5

REF. FPSD-11080

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Sackie

Teah Doe.

2. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal: Emilio García Silvero Chief Legal & Compliance Officer pg. 6

REF. FPSD-11080

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE: According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION: FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football

Tribunal).

CONTACT INFORMATION

Fédération Internationale de Football Association FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777 pg. 7